Loading...
2005 09 15 HPC Minutes MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING A Regular meeting held at the La Guinta City Hall Session Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Guinta, CA September 15, 2005 This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Chairman Allan Wilbur at 3:03 p.m. He then led the flag salute and asked for the roll call. I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance. B. Roll Call. Present: Commissioners Mouriquand, Puente, Sharp, Wright, and Chairman Wilbur Staff Present: Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Principal Planner Fred Baker, Planning Manager Les Johnson, and Secretary Carolyn Walker II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright and Mouriquand to take Items D and E first. Unanimously approved. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: There being no changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright and Sharp to approve the Minutes of July 21, 2005, as amended. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Cultural Resources Phase I Survey for the Costco Project: Applicant: HDR Engineering, Inc., for Komar Development Archaeological Consultant: Harris Archaeological Consultants (Nina Harris, RPA) Location: South side of Highway 111, midway between Jefferson Street and Dune Palms Road P:\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 9-15-05.doc Historic Preservation Commission September 15, 2005 1 . Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Mouriquand asked which tribe requested the Native American monitor. Staff replied it was the Augustine Band. Commissioner Mouriquand suggested Recommendation E contain more direction as to how the developer could make these arrangements. She was also concerned about the Morongo Band's request to enter formal consultation and asked if the consultation had been initiated. Principal Planner Fred Baker replied the project had been through the 90 day request period for consultation and had received only one letter asking for consultation. A follow-up phone call from the Morongo Band's representative, Mr. Britt Wilson, confirmed he wanted to see the Environmental Impact Report and the Mitigation Measures. Staff is working with him on any additional information he may need. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if staff would be doing a government-to-government consultation or would this be done through the consultant. Staff replied any consultation would have to be government-to-government. Commissioner Mouriquand commented the report stated the consultant archaeologist would serve as a City representative in consultation, but that was not appropriate. Principal Planner Fred Baker replied staff would represent the City at any consultations. Commissioner Mouriquand requested the Commission receive a follow-up report on any consultations. Staff replied they could do a follow-up report as requested. Commissioner Mouriquand commented consultation would have to be concluded before the project could go to public hearing. Staff replied they understood. 3. Commissioner Mouriquand said she had e-mailed some comments to staff regarding Recommendations D and E. Staff confirmed they were received. Commissioner Mouriquand read the following comments into the record: a. Item D: What is the status of SB 128 consultation. Why did they use a 14 mile radius when a one mile radius is required? Page 1: the phase 2 testing and report are to be completed and submitted to the city for HPC review and to complete the CEQA evaluation. Page 5: typo--should be Joseph Hamilton. I don't think a consultant can act for P:\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 9-15-05.doc 2 Historic Preservation Commission September 15, 2005 the City with regard to SB 18 gov't to gov't consultations. Page 6: Which villages are they talking about as being clustered near the project area? Page 9: typo...should be Gypsum. Page 10: Why were the 1904, 1917, and 1940s maps not consulted for this project? Table A: the Hammer Property report is not listed in chart. She should tie in her discussion with the findings for that project which is not too far to the west of this project site. Page 19: where is the evaluation discussion for the sites? Page 20: what is their recommendation for those areas not exposed? Page 21 : take out extra "1970" for Bedwell reference. The apparent goof-up on the SB 18 process bothers me. Can we get the photos for the site records? It would be useful to see what she found. Page 6: typo ...Should be "Earlier" rather than "Earlir" in subsection heading. A review for typos is needed. 4. Commissioner Mouriquand commented this was a draft report which gave the Commission an opportunity to address issues and corrections. 5. Chairman Wilbur asked about additional language for Recommendation E. Commissioner Mouriquand commented language was needed to clarify and give direction to the developer regarding arrangements for a Native American monitor. She added there was no commitment by either Tribe to take on the responsibility. She suggested staff could contact the tribes to verify who would take the lead and work with the developer on whether the participant would be a Native American observer or a participant monitor. 6. Chairman Wilbur asked if a monitor required professional qualifications. Commissioner Mouriquand answered it meant an active monitor. The tribes deem who is qualified. An observer is someone sitting on the sidelines observing the monitors at work. 7. Commissioner Wright commented he concurred with Commissioner Mouriquand on Recommendation E and was disappointed in the number of typographical errors. He was also glad it was a draft and not a final copy. 8. Chairman Wilbur asked staff if they had enough information to revise Recommendation E. Staff replied they did. P:\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 9-' 5-05.doc 3 Historic Preservation Commission September 15, 2005 9. Commissioner Mouriquand asked why the consultant had used a quarter-mile, instead of one-mile, radius. Staff replied there were 22 studies found within a quarter mile which made it very clear the area is highly sensitive. Commissioner Wright commented the Commission ought to be consistent in requesting a one-mile radius. Commissioner Mouriquand agreed and added the only exception would be if the report contained a very thorough and reasonable discussion supporting the reduction. 10. Chairman Wilbur asked if it would be appropriate to contact the developer regarding the Commission's concerns. Commissioner Mourqiuand said the one-mile radius was a professional standard with most agencies. Commissioner Sharp asked if the consultant was aware of the City's parameters. Commissioner Mouriquand said that was their professional responsibility to check with each jurisdiction on their rules and regulations. 11. Chairman Wilbur said he would support a motion to send this report back to the consultant with suggestions. Planning Manager Les Johnson suggested staff take the Commission's suggestions back to the consultant and give them the opportunity to amend the document. It will be clearly conveyed this is to be a final report, with a full-mile radius, or justification for the quarter-mile. Chairman Wilbur said he wanted opportunity to review it, based on the quarter-mile justification, and completion of the City's parameters. 12. Commissioner Sharp brought up an issue regarding the Embassy Hotel, relative to trenching. He was concerned about the depth of trenching in sensitive areas, similar to the situation with the underground garage in the Embassy Hotels. He said this is a major project and was concerned about any underground work. Staff replied there would be no underground facilities, other than a loading dock which would not go below six or eight feet which is the approximate standard for an on-site retention basin. P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 9-15-05.doc 4 Historic Preservation Commission September 15, 2005 13. Chairman Wilbur asked the members of the Commission for recommendations. Commissioner Mouriquand suggested a motion that the Phase I report be remanded back to the consultant to address the Commission's concerns. Commissioner Wright seconded it. 14. Copies of Commissioner Mouriquand's comments were distributed for study. Chairman Wilbur asked the Commissioners if they had any comments. Commissioner Sharp said, according to his understanding, all the issues had been covered on this item. 15. There was no further comment. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Mouriqand and Wright to remand the Cultural Resources Phase I Survey for the Costco project back to the developer with amendments as stated above. Unanimously approved. B. Cultural Resources Phase II Survey for the Costco Project: Applicant: HDR Engineering, Inc., for Komar Development Archaeological Consultant: Harris Archaeological Consultants (Nina Harris, RPA) Location: South side of Highway 111, midway between Jefferson Street and Dune Palms Road 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Sharp asked for clarification of "The Garden of Dreams." Staff replied it was a label. Commissioner Mouriquand said she did not find any discussion addressing the significance of this item. Commissioner Sharp asked where the label was. Commissioner Mouriquand said it would be archived in the City if it had been collected. 3. Commissioner Mouriquand said the consultant did the one- meter-by-one-meter test excavation unit for the historic sites, but only did shovel test pits for the prehistoric sites. This project sounds like it is in a dune environment and additional testing needs to be done. There is an established method for testing prehistoric dune sites and shovel test pits are too minimal to evaluate the significance of the site P:\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 9-1 5-05.doc 5 Historic Preservation Commission September 15, 2005 4. Chairman Wilbur had concerns about the discussion of time periods and the completeness of the report. Commissioner Mouriquand said the report did not answer the three basic questions: what was found, what does it mean, and what is to be done about it. The historic material was pretty good, but there was an inadequate amount of information in which to draw any conclusions. 5. Commissioner Wright said this report was unacceptable and not up to the caliber of the reports the Commission has come to expect. 6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Mouriquand and Wright to request the field work be redone, testing below sterile, and to revise the Cultural Resources Phase \I Survey for the Costco project incorporating the new data. Unanimously approved. C. Phase I Cultural Resources Survey Report: Applicant: Quadrant, Inc. Archaeological Consultant: ECORP Consulting, Inc. Location: South side of Avenue 58, west of Monroe Street 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Applicant, Savek Khatchadourian, owner of Quadrant, Beverly Hills, California, introduced himself and said he was available to answer any questions. 3. Commissioner Mouriquand commented the revised report was very disappointing and not up to professional standards. There were no photographs and there was no reference as to whether this was subject to Senate Bill 18. Staff replied this is a Tentative Tract Map only, and not subject to the requirements of Senate Bill 18. 4. Commissioner Wright reiterated his earlier comments on the professionalism of the types of reports the Commission had come to expect. This report did not meet those standards. 5. Commissioner Mouriquand said the standards the Commission was expecting were industry-wide standards; not just those of P:\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 9-15-05.doc 6 Historic Preservation Commission September 15, 2005 the City, but as 'adopted by other cities, the State and Federal government as well. She added, in the Appendices, there was a hand-written copy which was interesting as a historical document, but there was no explanation or identifying label on it. In addition, the report was so minimal in text it did not provide enough information for a determination as to whether it would be usable to answer CEOA questions. She asked staff if the survey was negative. Staff replied it was. She suggested the Commission also require the improved language for this developer regarding the Native American monitor and staff might want to give the Augustine Band a call since they're the ones who responded. 6. Chairman Wilbur asked what the Commission could do to better communicate their standards to the consultants. Commissioner Mouriquand suggested the City send a letter to the applicant including recommendations on what the report is to contain. 7. Commissioner Wright said it is the consultant's responsibility to find out what is needed and follow those procedures. 8. Mr. Khatchadourian asked if his consultant responded to the issues that were outlined. Commissioner Mouriquand replied the report was not up to professional standards. Mr. Khatchadourian asked if there were standards given to consultants. Commissioner Mouriquand replied the State Historic Preservation Office has a set of standards, called the ARMR format, which all professionals are aware of. 9. Mr. Khatchadourian said the consultant responded to the Commissions previous comments, but asked if the response was not adequate. Commissioner Mouriquand replied it was not enough response and asked staff if the report was comprehensive enough to answer CEOA questions. Staff replied it was, for the City's purposes, but could have included more details. P:\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 9-1 5-05.doc 7 Historic Preservation Commission September 15, 2005 10. Mr. Khatchadourian asked if there was anything he could tell his consultant to make sure they return a more complete report. Commissioner Mouriquand replied it was up to the Commission to finish deliberating and come to a decision about what to do. 11. Chairman Wilbur said he thought they ought to use the ARMR format. 12. Commissioner Mouriquand suggested that the Commission conditionally approve this report with a letter to the consultant explaining the Commission's concerns and advising them no further reports will be accepted that don't meet the professional level of standard required by the ARMR report format and established City standards. 13. Chairman Wilbur asked what conditional acceptance meant. Commissioner Mouriquand agreed that was a good point. She revised her motion to accept the report provided a certified letter go out to the consultant as described above. 14. Mr. Khatchadourian said he would will call the consultant and make them aware of the problem. 15. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Mouriquand and Wright to adopt Minute Motion 2005-019 accepting the results of the Cultural Resources Survey Report, with condition as follows: That the Commission accept this report provided a certified letter be mailed to the consultant advising them of acceptable standards for the City of La Quinta and that the Commission will not accept any future reports of the quality of the current report. Unanimously approved. D. PaleontololJical Resources Assessment Report: Applicant: Coral Mountain Trails. LLC (Tom Cullinan) Archaeological Consultant: CRM Tech. Inc. Location: South side of Avenue 59, along Jefferson Street, Tentative Tract Map 33444. P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 9.15.05.doc 8 Historic Preservation Commission September 15, 2005 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented contained in the staff report, a copy of which Community Development Department. the information is on file in the 2. Commissioners Wright and Mouriquand concurred with staff's recommendations. 3. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright and Mouriquand to adopt Minute Motion 2005-020 to accept the report as submitted. Unanimously approved. E. Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Applicant: Coral Mountain Trails, LLC (Tom Cullinan) Archaeological Consultant: CRM Tech, Inc. Location: South of Avenue 59, along Jefferson Street, Tentative Tract Map 33444 1 . Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Wilbur asked for comments. Commissioner Sharp had a question about the size and description of the 80 acres. Applicant, Tom Cullinan expanded upon the description in the report. 3. Commissioner Mouriquand mentioned she had not received this report and asked if she could borrow a copy to check the exhibits. 4. Commissioner Wright said he concurred with staff's recommendation and amendment that we have guidelines for the Native American Indian information as stated in Recommendation D. 5. Commissioner Sharp asked about a previous find at the Quarry. Commissioner Mouriquand said they found some rock alignments and theorized they may have archaeo-astromy significance, or the bases of hunting blinds/screens. Commissioner Sharp asked if they were prehistoric. Commissioner Mouriquand replied they were. Commissioner Sharp commented there could be other finds on this location. Commissioner Mouriquand said there were a number of sites in this general area which were highly sensitive for prehistoric resources and there was a possibility of subsurface finds. P:\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 9-1 5~05.doc 9 Historic Preservation Commission September 15, 2005 6. It was discovered that none of the Commissioners received the Historical/Archaeological Resources R'eport. Copies were made and the Commissioners recessed to review the project. 7. The Commissioners recommended and discussed the possibility of continuing the item. Staff suggested they review it at this meeting as the project is currently being processed. 8. Commissioners Mouriquand and Wright were concerned as to whether the report could be read and digested in such a short period of time. Staff said there were only three isolates found. Commissioner Mouriquand said she understood the necessity to process this, but she didn't know what the isolates were. Staff said they were mentioned in the staff report. There was a piece of chip stone and two ceramic sherds. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if the sherds were painted. Commissioner Puente replied they were not. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if they were local sherds. 9. Commissioner Mouriquand commented on (Government Land Office). maps, transects, American Scoping. Commissioner Wright Commissioner Mouriquand's recommendation. the GLO and Native deferred to 10. Commissioner Mouriquand continued, saying this was a re- survey, originally done in 1994. Due to the age of the report, it had to be re-surveyed. 11. Commissioner Sharp commented on the rough terrain. Mr. Cullinan discussed the size of the parcel and added a 330 acre piece of sensitive land will not be developed. 12. Commissioner Mouriquand commented on the request by the Augustine and Morongo Bands for consultation if anything is unearthed during monitoring. Mr. Dunlap, a Gabrielano/Luseiio/ Cahuilla representative recommended that both Native American and archaeological monitors be contacted to observe the earth moving activities. He recommended consultation with the Torres Martinez band to provide Native American monitoring. 13. Commissioner Mouriquand commended the applicant on the report. P:\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 9-' 5-05.doc 10 Historic Preservation Commission September 1 5, 2005 14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente and Sharp to adopt Minute Motion 2005-021 accepting the Historical! Archaeological Resources Survey Report as submitted. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. A flyer on "Prehistoric Occupation at Lavic Lake, California" was distributed to the Commissioners. VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Mouriquand had three items she wanted to agendize for future discussion: 1). the removal of the Point Happy gate, 2). the destruction of the Point Happy tree, and 3). SB 18. She was under the impression the Commission had requested both be preserved. Staff would research it and get back to the Commission as the current staff was not directly involved in the project. B. Commissioner Wright said he and Commissioner Mouriquand both had concerns about the demolition of historic items. C. Commissioner Mouriquand said she understood there were some historic cottages, in the Cove, that had been demolished. Staff said they were unaware of any. They had been working with other Departments to avoid any such occurrence. D. Commissioner Mouriquand asked if staff could find out what happened with the Point Happy gate and tree that were removed. Commissioner Mouriquand said the gate and tree would be considered part of the historic landscape of that property. E. Commissioner Wright was concerned that the Commission spent a considerable amount of time on this project, to prevent this type of activity from occurring, only to end up with the historic items being removed anyway. Due to the City's rapid growth, he's concerned about protecting the remaining historicity of the City; whether it concerns historic landscape or structures. He commented on the accelerating worth of the property in the City. He is most concerned about the fact the land is of such great value in the Cove and the fact there are historic homes that may be demolished for the property value. He commented he would like to take the cultural resources manual drive around the City to see if those structures are still standing. He suggested others might want to do their own survey. P:\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 9-15-05.doc 11 Historic Preservation Commission September 1 5, 2005 F. Commissioner Puente suggested the developer had stored the gate to place it in another location. Commission Sharp also suggested it could be in storage since this was discussed with the developer. G. Commissioner Puente asked if the Commission could request follow- up, or final inspection on approved projects. H. Commissioner Mouriquand said the mitigation monitoring plan, which is part of the CEOA documentation, requires a plan with verification of compliance, by staff. The Commission can ask to see the verification or follow-up. I. Commissioner Puente asked if they could request the monitoring plan for Point Happy. Commissioner Mouriquand said the City would have that in their project case files. J. Commissioner Wright suggested it be put on the agenda for the next meeting. Another agenda item, he would like to include was some discussion on the mission and goals of this Commission now and in the future. K. Commissioner Mouriquand commented on the properties that had been documented on the State Registry and the City's responsibility to monitor those properties. L. Commissioner Wright asked about the status of the grant process. Staff was unable to provide the status, but would report back at the next meeting. Commissioner Mouriquand suggested the Community Development Director might want to give the Commission a briefing at the next meeting: M. Commissioner Wright said he was also very concerned about monitoring of the La Ouinta Hotel and the status of the casitas N. Commissioner Mouriquand had some questions about Senate Bill 18, the Burton Law. This law mandates the cities and the counties in the State to comply with it since March 1 of this year. Basically, this is the law that mandates government-to-government consultation with local Indian bands whenever a city or county processes a General Plan Amendment or Specific Plan. Every city and county is supposed to have consultation protocols, confidentiality protocols, and figure out how to implement this and integrate it with their planning and CEOA review process. She had asked that the Commission be briefed on the status of the City's process and would like to see that item on the next agenda for discussion. She said she would like to see the staff P:\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 9-15-05.doc 12 Historic Preservation Commission September 15, 2005 reports for these consultants come through with comments on whether or not they are subject to Senate Bill18 or not and the status of that process. This would be after the Phase I survey has been completed and something of significance found. She further discussed the fact that local tribes are very well informed on SB 18 and are holding the cities and counties accountable. Chairman Wilbur asked if it could hold up a project. Commissioner Mouriquand answered yes, since the item can not go to hearing until consultation is completed. O. Chairman Wilbur asked if there was anyone available to brief the Commission on the aspects of SB 18. Commissioner Mouriquand said she had been teaching classes at UC Davis, and for a couple of the tribes. She said she didn't know if La Guinta had a protocol as yet. Staff replied the City is researching and looking into a protocol together. They expect to have a report at the next meeting. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright and Sharp to adjourn this Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to the next Regular Meeting to be held on October 20, 2005. This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was adjourned at 4.53 p.m. Unanimously approved. Submitted by: (~c/Lt-6/t-) !dLt../~Uv Carolyn Walker Secretary P:\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 9-l5-05.doc 13